Commons:Deletion requests/File:Woman using butt plug.jpg
Low res, lack of metadata make me suspect copyvio - tineye comes up with several NSFW sites with the same image. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Those NSFW websites recieved the image from me under my copyright. --Brow276 (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep
Delete Every time the uploader has different explanations, hence we have to assume COM:PRP.- @LX: then there are a few hundred-thousand OTHER files on commons is no argument; if you feel so then start deletion debates on those 100.000 other files. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- hey again, yik. i've now officially lost count of the number of debates we are having, on this exact topic, BUT 2 points:
- i. the link to policy that you have provided says nothing about "guilt-by-association"
- ii. i'm not the one who thinks that files should be deleted as "probably copyvio" on this flimsy basis. i'm trying to point out what is wrong with your logic in this matter.
- Yeah, I agree that all uploaded pictures of Brow276 just provides a flimsy basis for the correct copyright. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- ok, you're not making sense anymore; let's just agree to disagree, & end the interaction? Lx 121 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- What are we talking about? The uploader is not credible, the upload is a blatant copyvio from porn website. This is precedence for his other uploads. We can say to him that it is a shame that he absues his privilege to contribute to an open project for uploading stolen files, thereby poisoning the atmosphere in this already very difficult topic. A shame too that he has the nerve to claim this copyio an act of education and himself an educated person, but well, Wikipedia is full of false information and it not only attracts honest people. --Martin H. (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK there we have some actual proof that there is a problem. NOW the onus would be on the uploader, to provide evidence that they are the creator/copyright's-holder of the file.
- on that basis, i am willing to change my vote
- tangentially though, the person does make a perfectly valid point about the educational value & relevance of (non-copyvio) images for this purpose.
- & we are looking at removing a photo that is legitimately "in-use" @ wikipedia.
- so... do we have a suitable replacement "in stock"?
- I'm not sure it's legitimately in use - I think the uploader added it. It rather goes against en policy of no real sex please. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- huh!? when did that policy get approved @ wiki/en? o__0 (& can you link me to it, pls?) Lx 121 (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus on en.wp has generally been to remove all pictures of actual sex where possible, and replace with drawings and Greek urns. Don't know if it's an actual policy or just what's happened. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- how very stupid! i'll have to go poke around there & see where that came from. i don't actually spend very much time on sex-related topics (except for occasional sorting efforts here), but mindless "bowdlerization" offends me, in ways that sex does not :P Lx 121 (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus on en.wp has generally been to remove all pictures of actual sex where possible, and replace with drawings and Greek urns. Don't know if it's an actual policy or just what's happened. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- huh!? when did that policy get approved @ wiki/en? o__0 (& can you link me to it, pls?) Lx 121 (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's legitimately in use - I think the uploader added it. It rather goes against en policy of no real sex please. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Highly likely not the own work of the uploader: per COM:PRP High Contrast (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Out-of-scope porn image, possibly an infringement of personality rights. I would anonymize this. 68.173.113.106 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, AND LOOK. The person just re-added the image. 68.173.113.106 22:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as copyright violation - http://www.imagefap.com/photo/538934646/3.jpg?link=thm. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You all are rediculous. The original image is my own personal work. The model is my girlfriend. In fact she is laying next to me as I write this. We have been posting online for a long time and becuase of this her photos are on several sites and have been reused several times. Jmw55018 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment The imagefap photo has a logo on it. I don't think it can be the original so there's no evidence of a copyvio. The image is very much in scope as a clear illustration of butt plug use. But I am concerned about the subject being identifiable in a very private situation. --Simonxag (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete No exif-data, copyvio shown, and btw: this is my girlfriend. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, the uploader is right, the image we have is non-watermarked, also is significantly larger. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps the author could send an email saying previously published etc to COM:OTRS? That would make things ok IMO. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, the uploader is right, the image we have is non-watermarked, also is significantly larger. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no actual proof that this is a copyright violation. But there is no EXIF data, this user has not uploaded anything else (I think they may have tried to upload it as "beckyplugged" before), and we have had many problems with this sort of image being copied from porn sources only to be discovered as copyright violations much later. I think the uploader must email OTRS and convince the volunteer who handles this of their good faith and of the subject's consent, (this conversation will be private!!!). I know we normally assume good faith, but certain problems are depressingly familiar. Otherwise, though I strongly support the hosting of this sort of image, I'd say Delete --Simonxag (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY (TALK) 03:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
